Legal Research
Cases
Castle v The Queen

Castle v The Queen

Case [2016] NSWCCA 148 3 August 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Castle v R [2016] NSWCCA 148
Hearing dates: 1 March 2016
Date of orders: 03 August 2016
Decision date: 03 August 2016
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Hall J at [60]; R A Hulme J at [101]
Decision:
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction – detaining without consent with intent to obtain advantage in company, s 86 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – whether misdirection regarding content of recklessness – whether inadvertent recklessness satisfies mens rea for the offence of kidnapping
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 61A, 61D, 61L, 61R, 86, 90A
Criminal Damage Act 1971 (UK) s 1, 2
Malicious Damage Act 1861 (UK)
Cases Cited: AM v R [2011] NSWCCA 237
Banditt v The Queen [2005] HCA 80; 224 CLR 262
DJB v R; R v DJB [2007] NSWCCA 209
Fitzgerald v Kennard (1995) 38 NSWLR 184
Jackson v R [2005] NSWCCA 411
O’Sullivan v R; Flanders v R; Tohu v R & NRH v R [2012] NSWCCA 45; 233 A Crim R 449
R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341
R v Crabbe [1985] HCA 22; 156 CLR 464
R v Cunningham [1957] 2 QB 396
R v Daly [1968] VR 257
R v DMC [2002] NSWCCA 513; 137 A Crim R 246
R v G [2003] UKHL 50; [2004] 1 AC 1034
R v Hemsley (1988) 36 A Crim R 334
R v Henning (Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW), 11 May 1990, unrep)
R v Kitchener (1993) 29 NSWLR 696
R v Lawrence [1982] AC 510
R v Mitton [2002] NSWCCA 124; 132 A Crim R 123
R v Morgan [1976] AC 182
R v Mueller [2005] NSWCCA 47; 62 NSWLR 476
R v O’Meagher (1997) 101 A Crim R 196
R v Porteus [2003] NSWCCA 18
R v Reid [1992] 1 WLR 793
R v Stephenson [1979] QB 695
R v Tolmie (1995) 37 NSWLR 660
R v Tyrone Chishimba, Tyrone Chishimba v R; Likumbo Makasa v R, R v Likumbo Makasa; Mumbi Peter Mulenga v R, R v Mumbi Peter Mulenga [2010] NSWCCA 228
South v R [2007] NSWCCA 117
Texts Cited: Peter Gillies, Criminal Law (4th ed 1997, LBC Information Services)
David Brown et al, Criminal Laws (5th ed 2011, The Federation Press)
Courtney Stanhope Kenny, Outlines of Criminal Law (1902, Cambridge University Press)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Brendan Joel Castle (Appellant)
Crown (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Healy (Appellant)
H Baker (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Australian Criminal Law Specialists Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2012/368718
Publication restriction: The name of the complainant is not to be published. Any material that identifies the complainant or is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant is not to be published.
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

03 March 2014

Before:

Wells DCJ SC

File…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Castle v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Castle v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 148
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 148
Decision Date: 03 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Castle v The Queen, the appellant was convicted by a jury in the Supreme Court of New South Wales of detaining a person without their consent with the intent to obtain an advantage for a company, in breach of section 86 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The case was heard on appeal in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central issue was whether the trial judge had misdirected the jury regarding the requisite mens rea for the offence, specifically whether inadvertent recklessness was sufficient to satisfy the charge of kidnapping.

The Court of Criminal Appeal considered whether the trial judge had correctly instructed the jury that the appellant must have acted with reckless indifference to the person's right to liberty to be found guilty of the offence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had failed to properly define recklessness and had thereby misdirected the jury, potentially leading to an unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict. The Crown contended that the trial judge's directions were accurate and that the jury had been properly guided in its deliberations.

The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the trial judge had indeed misdirected the jury by not adequately defining recklessness. The court found that the judge had omitted to instruct the jury that recklessness requires a conscious disregard of a substantial risk, rather than merely inadvertent recklessness. As a result, the court held that the appellant's conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory and ordered a re-trial. The court emphasised that the jury must be correctly informed of the legal standards to ensure that verdicts are based on a proper understanding of the law.

Orders